The Claims of Astronomy Examined
February 6, 2017
G.D.O’Bradovich III
1
Egyptology is not a monolith disciple, it has many facets of viable research and types of learning. If we take one aspect, the written language, then there are at least areas known to this researcher: old, middle and Ptolemaic. Therefore, if there are potentially hundreds of specialties for study that is confined to a river and a delta, then how many more specialties can the vast and unreachable expanses of the heavens provide for researchers; easily thousands, and these specialties include hundreds of thousands individuals worldwide. If facts are determined by the sheer number of opinions, then the Gentle Reader’s concern for Yours Truly’s position regarding the claims of astronomy would be justified.
One of the difficulties of communication is the possible ambiguous nature of the certain words and specific terms we may use. “Science” and “scientific” are ambiguous words.
Egyptology is said to be a science, and we agree, as far as learning is concerned. Yet, Egyptology does not possess a hallmark of science: repeatability. Egyptology is said to a scientific, and we agree, as far as learning is concerned. Yet, Egyptology is not repeatable, so it is not scientific.
As we cannot repeatedly place people in on the Nile River with same result: Egyptian civilization. Therefore, Egyptology is scientific, as it is a form of knowing something, and it is not scientific, as it does not offer the possibility of repeatable experiments.
We have learned that, Cavendish, in the year 1798, attempted the first laboratory experience to confirm Newton’s propositions. This experiment was 111 years after Newton's publication. We suggest that waiting over a century to test a scientific idea is due to either universal acceptance of the propositions, or universal rejection of the propositions.
We have learned that in the year 1674, Hooke wrote a paper entitled “An Attempt to Prove the Motion of the Earth from Observations” and the work was based on three assumptions, without evidence, and without mathematical demonstrations. The implication of the title is that as late as the year 1674, the earth’s motion needed to be demonstrated, as the evidence, according to the appropriate senses, indicates its immobility.
We have learned that Newton (1642-1726) based his propositions on the astronomical theories of Kepler (1571-1630). In turn, Kepler based his theories on the astronomical observations of Brahe (1546-1601). The Gentle Reader will note that one of these men is not like the others, one of these men just doesn't belong.
We have learned that the “gravitational constant” is difficult to measure with “high accuracy”, as it is “extremely weak” when compared to other “fundamental forces”. In light of the difficulty in accurately measuring gravity, the Skeptical Reader may wonder if gravity exists.
We have learned, according to the claim of astronomy, that gravity is the weak force maintaining the “planet” earth in its orbit around our “star”, the sun. Another astronomical claim is that the gravity of our “satellite”, the moon, attracts the terrestrial oceans to create high tides, while the “planet” earth attracts the oceans. resulting in low tides.
We have learned many things relating to astronomy and although Apprentice Denver could memorize the lives of the Saints, but as a famous philologist observed, this effort would only result in “idle learning”. All learning, we conclude, is equal, but some learning is more equal than others.
We are pleased to finally admit to Apprentice Denver, that we have learned multiple facts relating to the sciences associated with astronomy. More importantly, we have learned many claims made by astronomy.
We have learned that all of modern astronomy is based on propositions, assumptions, and proposals promulgated in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.
However, we regret that we have not learned whether these assumptions are accurate, plausible, or unlikely. We approach the claims of astronomy with caution, not because we are incapable of understanding the claims, but we know the all conclusions are ultimately based on certain presumptions regarding the nature of our world.
These assumptions of our world do not inspire confidence in any modern conclusions of astronomy. In conclusion to this part, if any one of these three assumptions are found to be incorrect, then three centuries of effort in the astronomical sciences, and the overwhelming majority of conclusions, must be acknowledged as worthless.
In conclusion, certain men want to go to Moscow, while the Gentle Researcher knows that Yours Truly prefers the alternative. Yet, only one outcome is assured.
One of the difficulties of communication is the possible ambiguous nature of the certain words and specific terms we may use. “Science” and “scientific” are ambiguous words.
Egyptology is said to be a science, and we agree, as far as learning is concerned. Yet, Egyptology does not possess a hallmark of science: repeatability. Egyptology is said to a scientific, and we agree, as far as learning is concerned. Yet, Egyptology is not repeatable, so it is not scientific.
As we cannot repeatedly place people in on the Nile River with same result: Egyptian civilization. Therefore, Egyptology is scientific, as it is a form of knowing something, and it is not scientific, as it does not offer the possibility of repeatable experiments.
We have learned that, Cavendish, in the year 1798, attempted the first laboratory experience to confirm Newton’s propositions. This experiment was 111 years after Newton's publication. We suggest that waiting over a century to test a scientific idea is due to either universal acceptance of the propositions, or universal rejection of the propositions.
We have learned that in the year 1674, Hooke wrote a paper entitled “An Attempt to Prove the Motion of the Earth from Observations” and the work was based on three assumptions, without evidence, and without mathematical demonstrations. The implication of the title is that as late as the year 1674, the earth’s motion needed to be demonstrated, as the evidence, according to the appropriate senses, indicates its immobility.
We have learned that Newton (1642-1726) based his propositions on the astronomical theories of Kepler (1571-1630). In turn, Kepler based his theories on the astronomical observations of Brahe (1546-1601). The Gentle Reader will note that one of these men is not like the others, one of these men just doesn't belong.
We have learned that the “gravitational constant” is difficult to measure with “high accuracy”, as it is “extremely weak” when compared to other “fundamental forces”. In light of the difficulty in accurately measuring gravity, the Skeptical Reader may wonder if gravity exists.
We have learned, according to the claim of astronomy, that gravity is the weak force maintaining the “planet” earth in its orbit around our “star”, the sun. Another astronomical claim is that the gravity of our “satellite”, the moon, attracts the terrestrial oceans to create high tides, while the “planet” earth attracts the oceans. resulting in low tides.
We have learned many things relating to astronomy and although Apprentice Denver could memorize the lives of the Saints, but as a famous philologist observed, this effort would only result in “idle learning”. All learning, we conclude, is equal, but some learning is more equal than others.
We are pleased to finally admit to Apprentice Denver, that we have learned multiple facts relating to the sciences associated with astronomy. More importantly, we have learned many claims made by astronomy.
We have learned that all of modern astronomy is based on propositions, assumptions, and proposals promulgated in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.
However, we regret that we have not learned whether these assumptions are accurate, plausible, or unlikely. We approach the claims of astronomy with caution, not because we are incapable of understanding the claims, but we know the all conclusions are ultimately based on certain presumptions regarding the nature of our world.
These assumptions of our world do not inspire confidence in any modern conclusions of astronomy. In conclusion to this part, if any one of these three assumptions are found to be incorrect, then three centuries of effort in the astronomical sciences, and the overwhelming majority of conclusions, must be acknowledged as worthless.
In conclusion, certain men want to go to Moscow, while the Gentle Researcher knows that Yours Truly prefers the alternative. Yet, only one outcome is assured.